4.7 Article

Improved management increases carrying capacity of Brazilian pastures

期刊

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
卷 282, 期 -, 页码 30-39

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.017

关键词

Hydraulic conductivity; S index; Porosity; Water retention

资金

  1. National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq)
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  3. Foundation for Research Support of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grazing pasture without appropriate soil conservation and animal management often leads to reduced soil quality and decreased productivity because of trampling induced compaction. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of three conservation-based pasture management strategies on soil physical attributes. The treatments were (1) Brachiaria decumbens + mineral-N fertilization, (2) mixed pasture + legume (forage peanut, Arachis pintoi), and (3) Brachiaria without fertilization were compared with a native grassland reference area without management. The hypothesis is that nitrogen fertilization favors an increase in the animal stocking rate, maintaining the physical quality of the soil. The treatments had no significant effect on soil porosity, bulk density, or water retention. The S-index showed that intense animal trampling in the treatment with nitrogen fertilization resulted in the most intense degradation. Mixed pasture with the intercropped legume and N-fertilization maintained soil physical quality similar to the area without management, reinforcing the importance of appropriate soil management practices in pasture. However, although the N-fertilized area had soil physical quality similar to the others, it could support more animals, suggesting an economic advantage over other soil management practices. To preserve or enhance soil physical quality, mixed pastures and fertilization can be adopted, increasing the soil load-bearing capacity, which represents more animals per area.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据